Current treatment decisions for medulloblastoma are still largely based on the clinical variables of metastatic disease at diagnosis and extent of surgical resection both for pediatric and adult patients. For pediatric patients, age is also taken into account, as patients younger than 4 years of age are usually not treated with radiotherapy, especially those with standard risk. However, stratifying patients in only two major risk categories, standard and high-risk, inappropriately simplifies the true clinical and molecular heterogeneity of medulloblastoma. We therefore recently proposed a molecular risk stratification system for pediatric medulloblastomas based on cytogenetic aberrations (
MYC/
MYCN amplifications, chromosome 6 and 17 aberrations) [
15]. However, as has been shown, pediatric and adult medulloblastomas are distinct in terms of genomic aberrations and their impact on clinical outcome.
MYC/
MYCN amplifications are very rare in adult medulloblastoma and chromosome 6 aberrations do not have the prognostic value in adult medulloblastoma patients as they have in pediatric medulloblastoma patients [
7]. We therefore proposed a different algorithm for the molecular stratification of adult medulloblastomas based on aberrations of chromosome 10 and 17 [
7]. This system may now need a further adjustment to acknowledge the fact that distinct molecular subgroups exist in medulloblastoma, including in the adult age group. As shown previously [
7], loss of 10q, loss of 17p, and gain of 17q, all demonstrate prognostic significance in adult MB and all of them predict a poor outcome (Fig.
1d–f). However, this is largely driven by the SHH subgroup, in which these three markers clearly show prognostic significance (Fig.
1g–i). For Group 4 MBs, all adult patients tend to have a poor prognosis, and the three copy-number markers therefore do not show as significant a prognostic effect as they do for SHH tumors (Fig.
1j–l).Consequently, the DNA copy number status of chromosome 10 and 17 will be most useful as molecular markers for risk stratification when combined with subgroup assessment. For subgroup assessment, the Nanostring assay can be used, which predicts the tumor-specific subgroup with high accuracy, based on the expression level of 22 subgroup-specific signature genes [
16]. Alternatively, a panel of immunohistochemistry-based markers (b-catenin, SFRP1, NPR3, KCNA1) can be assessed, as has been shown in previous publications [
11,
17,
18]. Of note, it is clear that these emerging biological risk criteria in MB will need prospective validation using multivariate analysis and taking into account classical prognostic factors (extent of surgery, metastatic disease).